THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Another note:
The sudden removal of these stations caused the “perceived” increased temperature plateau of the 1990’s and may account for the resumption of “global cooling” during the 2000’s as the number of stations stabilized during this decade.
Bob
I suspect Peter is prone to both the Mencken and Tolstoy syndrome and will believe what he wants to believe. Its a shame humanity is wasting so much time, money and effort on AGW when there are so many things I think we could all agree that it could be spent on.
” H.L.Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
Tolstoy wrote;
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Brute.
Yes it has been my undersanding that the phasing out of Russian ‘cold weather’ stations ‘coincided’ with a jump in temperatures. I am trying to go further back in time to see the number and location of stations. The numbers have been up and down like a yo yo, starting with 100-many of dubious quality-in 1850. 200 recognised ones in 1938, 6000 in the 1980’s and half that today. In addition many have changed locatioon, methodology, equipment, and have been corrected more often than a dunce with a strict teacher.
TonyB
Hi, a bit off topic, I came across this alarming information recently, I wonder how high Peters grouping place this serious threat.
Global Warming Worse Than We Thought – New Greenhouse Gas Discovered
http://public-eye.blogspot.com/
Tony B,
Regarding the “unprecedented” upward shift in averaged global temperatures during the 1990’s, it may all be simply explained by the removal of these monitoring stations, as Tolstoy so eloquently alluded to.
After all, the data pool “settled out” during the 1990’s and since that time we have seen no global warming.
Bob Clive,
Concerning your post # 3603, this is startling new information…..an absolute must see.
Peter and his “followers” may have found a new crusade in eradicating this insidious threat to our planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Funny, I thought that the “official” position of the the National Academy of Sciences was that the Sun’s role impacting conditions here on Earth was “inconsequential”.
POWERFUL SOLAR STORM COULD SHUT DOWN U.S. FOR MONTHS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html
Bobclive
I am sure that if we could devise a suitably impressive logo and send this out as a press release to the media, asking journalists to phone Professor Mencken for further information on this worrying development, that we would get several phone calls from the more credulius journalists.
Brute
I daresay that the loss of cold stations could account for part of that elusive 0.3C that Max keeps looking for, but isn’t sure if it should be attributed to co2 or not. Come on Max look at the graph and the animation I posted and see if we can find the missing fraction somewhere in Siberia!
TonyB
Wait, wait……I thought that the Alarmist position is that the missing 0.3C was lurking like a crouching tiger in the depths of the oceans waiting to rear it’s ugly head at (as yet undermined) future date?
Another well thought out plan put forth by government bean counters.
Wind energy supply dips during cold snap
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/4208940/Wind-energy-supply-dips-during-cold-snap.html
Max
You have previously expressed interest in my near neighbour Pen Hadow and his forthcoming arctic trip.
This was in todays newspaper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/4176711/Pen-Hadow-Snow-Patrol.html
you can follow his trip on http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com
TonyB
Tony B,
From the above linked article commenting about nations claiming mineral rights underneath of the ice cap:
This is one of your neighbors? I’m certain that this lunatic will approach this endeavor with an open mind…..what a nut…..
Has anyone seen the final figures for Mauna Loa 2008 yet? I had been half expecting a drop if the colder oceans are causing some absorption of co2-although probably not that noticeable on a volcanic island in a constantly outgassing warm ocean!
The figures I have dont show december or the final figure for 2008
http://co2now.org/index.php/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/current-data-atmospheric-co2.html
TonyB
TonyN,
Seems as if CO2 is dropped significantly this year.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loahttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
year ppm/yr
1959 0.95
1960 0.51
1961 0.95
1962 0.69
1963 0.73
1964 0.29
1965 0.98
1966 1.23
1967 0.75
1968 1.02
1969 1.34
1970 1.02
1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10
1976 0.91
1977 2.09
1978 1.31
1979 1.68
1980 1.80
1981 1.43
1982 0.72
1983 2.16
1984 1.37
1985 1.24
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.25
2004 1.62
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
2008 0.24
Correction to above post:
Sorry Tony. This may be what you really need.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Another apology:
Mid-Winter Report Card
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/mid-winter-report-card/#more-4934
As seen below, CPC forecast the highest probability of warmth for Alaska and the upper midwest.
Looking at the results, it appears that the CPC forecast map was approximately inverted from what has actually occurred.
On the other side of the pond, The Met Office famously forecast another warm season for the UK.
Trend of mild winters continues
25 September 2008
The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average.
Their scorecard is doing equally well, with the UK having it’s coldest winter in decades, as reported by the BBC.
last month proved to be the coldest December in more than 30 years, with the average temperature at 1.7C (35F), compared with the long-term average of 4.7C (40F) for the first part of the month.
On December 12, they issued this press release:
The Met Office seasonal forecast predicted the cold start to the winter season with milder conditions expected during January
Yet the Met Office appeared undaunted by yet another incorrect seasonal forecast, as reported by the always faithful Guardian earlier this week.
In the midst of a cold snap – a hot weather warning
As temperatures stay stubbornly well below freezing, it may feel like the last issue on anyone’s mind, but the government has been warned it may need to start thinking about introducing emergency hot weather payments to help poorer households keep cool.
And today, the Met Office reports:
The cold spell caused significant problems in many areas of the country. The Government’s bill for Cold Weather Payments is expected to rise to more than £100 million
How we did
The Met Office correctly forecast the spell of cold weather and kept the public informed via our various forecasts.
So what can we infer from this? Even on the short time scales, models don’t reach claimed accuracy. Climate models, though different in design and time scale have a 90% confidence level, as reportedly claimed by the IPCC.
Of course, “Weather is not climate.” But, skill level in atmospheric model design should not automatically be assumed to be better for one than the other.
Pete, further my 3599/24:
If Excel (your version, old?) does not offer ‘central moving average’ (CMA) I think you could adapt table data of ‘prior moving average’ (PMA), by adding an additional column, in which the smoothed PMA data are moved backwards by 1/2n, to the central average position. This would be tricky if n is 5, or any odd number, but seems easy to do if you used say 6 years, but the x axis years would have to be labelled Dec 31. (because presumably the PMA is for end of year, whereas yearly average in CMA is usually taken to mid-year point…. And you would go-back 3 whole years)
Why not give it a try, and see how it looks?
Germany having ‘one of the coldest winters in 100 years’
The cold has so far cost four people their lives and caused even the Muritzsee [a large lake] to freeze up.
One of the coldest winters in 100 years has cost Germany more lives. At minus 16 degrees a homeless man in Rhineland-Palatinate froze to death. Police said yersterday that the 58-year-old had for two years lived with a 43-year-old in a tent.
On Friday morning, a 53-year old Berliner was fished out dead from a hole in the ice in the Elde in Grabow (District Ludwigslust).
According to the police at directorate Schwerin, the man’s car was found with the key still in the ignition on the bridge of the federal 5th
In Nidda a man who lived in a nursing home became a victim of the cold, according to the police in Friedberg. The corpse of a man who on Sunday ran away from home, was found on Monday. Only now it has been established that he froze to death. On Monday in Weimar a demented 77 – year-old who had got lost froze to death…..
According to the German Weather Service (DWD), this is one of the coldest winters of the past 100 years. It is quite rare that such low temperatures as in the past days were recorded, the DWD meteorologist Thomas Schmidt said yesterday. The weather service Meteomedia reported yesterday a temperature of minus 34.6 degrees at the Funtensee in the Bavarian Alps. It was there in Christmas 2001, that the lowest temperature so far in Germany was recorded — at minus 45.9 degrees Celsius, .
For the first time in years the Mueritz lake in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania — with 11,700 hectares of Germany’s largest lake scenery — was again completely covered with ice. In northern Germany ice increasingly hampered inland ship movements: The Elbe was from Friday morning closed to shipping above Hamburg because of a thick blanket of ice.
Einer der kältesten Winter seit 100 Jahren
http://www.sz-online.de/nachrichten/artikel.asp?id=2042096
Pete, further my 3618, the thoughts I had on converting PMA to CMA trending overlooked one thing, sorry!
The raw point data will still be on mid-year points, whereas the smoothed data would be end of year. Consequently, there will still be a minor mismatch of 6 months in phasing. It would still be a lot better than what you have been doing though, or perhaps the latest Excel will properly do CMA?
ALL: Over at Gristmill Joe Romm is newly ranting and raving on the topic:
DIAGNOSING AN ASS VICTIM (link)
He opens with:
Well sorry Joe, but I voted for WUWT, currently leading, but surprisingly CA is not doing well, but way in front of RC. Go for it guys, it’s just two quick clicks!
Romm goes-on to define ASS as; ‘Anti-Science Syndrome’, and people who discuss various things such as the MWP; as ASS-wholes.
Brute, I think you could describe Romm as an Ass-hole for refusing to allow your posts on his site, but he has no editorial control at Gristmill. (it seems). Does anyone else have anything appropriate for Romm? I hope to think of something inconvenient for him!
ALL: since most of us rationalists here , (but not Pete), believe that climate computer models are not worth the shit that goes into them, you might be interested in my latest post over at Gristmill. (a few words are different for context for over here)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph Romm wrote about ¾ down in his lead article concerning the latest Inhofe 650 list:
As for Joe not understanding “Project Orion”, (nuclear propulsion), or the genius of Dyson, see HERE MY POST above.
Concerning the Dyson entry in the 650 list, he had this to say about computer modelling:
Dyson, a brilliant, widely achieving scientist, must surely have a much greater understanding than Joe and many “climatologists” on computer modelling. How can Joe presume such nonsense about him?
BobFJ
I think joe is aware from his rantings that things are going wrong for him and we are seeing the end of the Romman empire.
TonyB
Temperature Change and CO2 Change – A Scientific Briefing
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html
Hi Peter,
In your 3596 you show a remarkable inability (or is it a stubborn unwillingness?) to understand what has been pointed out to you in some deatil many times before.
You wrote: “As I think I’ve pointed out to you before, the reason you get such a low figure for climate sensitivity is because you are ignoring two important factors in ocean heat uptake and the effect of aerosols.”
I will go into detail here, trying to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible, so there is a minimum chance of misunderstandings on your part.
First, let’s start with “aerosols”. IPCC points out that the radiative forcing factor for CO2 is 1.66 W/m^2 (using factors reported by Myhre et al. and used in earlier IPCC reports).
Please confirm in writing that you have checked the pertinent table in IPCC SPM 2007 and that you have understood this first bit of information.
If there is any part of this first bit of information that you have failed to understand, or have been unable to find in the previously cited IPCC report, please advise and I will attempt to help you along the way.
Secondly, in the same IPCC report (on the same page) IPCC tells us that the sum of ALL anthropogenic factors: CO2, other GHGs, land use changes, aerosols, etc. represent a total net radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m^2.
Please confirm in writing that you have checked the pertinent table in IPCC SPM 2007 and that you have understood this second bit of information.
Again, if there is any part of this second bit of information that you have failed to understand, or have been unable to find in the previously cited IPCC report, please advise and I will attempt to help you along the way.
Moving right along here, from these two statements by IPCC we can conclude that all other anthropogenic factors essentially cancel one another out. In other words, Peter, one can forget about the impact of anthropogenic aerosols, as they are cancelled out by other anthropogenic factors other than CO2, according to IPCC.
Please confirm in writing that you have checked the pertinent table in IPCC SPM 2007 showing this and that you have understood this third bit of information.
Finally, if there is any part of this third bit of information that you have failed to understand, or have been unable to find in the previously cited IPCC report, please advise and I will attempt to help you along the way.
Now that we have laid “aerosols” to rest; let’s now discuss what you refer to as “ocean heat uptake”.
What do you mean by this? How has this factor manifested itself?
How has a warmer atmosphere (warmed by AGW) transferred heat into a cooler ocean, which is “lurking” there, waiting to be reemitted to the atmosphere causing more atmospheric warming in the future?
What physical evidence is there that this factor will play any role in the climate sensitivity of a 2xCO2 scenario or on the future climate of our planet?
Please elaborate. Do not refer me to “never-never” mumbo-jumbo studies by James E. Hansen or “swimming pool equilibrium” analogies of your own, but bring some evidence.
In the absence of such evidence, will write this factor off as a figment of your imgination (and that of some other more “imaginative” “climatologists”).
Your discussion of sea level and temperature changes “between glacial and interglacial states, in recent ice ages” is fascinating, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C, so should be left for another discussion.
To your final diversion, “But, anyway since when have you unconditionally accepted anything from the IPCC?”
Peter, I have never “unconditionally accepted anything from the IPCC” or from anyone else, for that matter.
IPCC are the self-proclaimed experts on anthropogenic climate forcing. They have established forcing factors for various pieces of the total anthropogenic forcing, from CO2 and other GHGs to aerosols, land use changes, etc., concluding that these, all together represent a net total forcing of 1.6 W/m^2, as elaborated above. I have checked other studies on the greenhouse hypothesis and have found nothing drastically wrong with the IPCC statements on this as listed in the referenced table of the cited report, as long as one accepts the basic validity of the greenhouse hypothesis.
On the other hand, IPCC have conceded that their “level of scientific understanding” of (natural) solar forcing is “low”. This is obviously not their area of expertise, so I can ignore the extremely low radiative forcing estimates they have claimed for solar forcing and have to look elsewhere for more meaningful data.
I have found these in the many reports by solar experts (previously cited), which tell me that the impact of solar forcing is much higher that the IPCC estimate, representing a net warming of 0.35C on average over the past 150+ year record, due to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years). This represents a bit more than half of the warming actually observed by Hadley over this period of 0.65C.
Whether the remainder of around 0.3C is attributable to anthropogenic CO2 (as IPCC would have us believe, based on the radiative forcing factors of the greenhouse hypothesis) or on a UHI distortion of the surface temperature record (as many independent studies from all over the world have indicated and as many contributors to this site have substantiated), or on a combination of these two factors, is anyone’s guess.
For purposes of our discussion, I have said that I can accept the theoretical warming of 0.3C from CO2 over the period 1850 to 2008, in accordance with the forcing factors stated by IPCC (in the cited report). This observed “fact” (if we can trust the temperature record) does not, however, in any way support the suggestion of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C. In fact, it directly refutes such a notion.
IPCC also concedes that cloud feedbacks were their “largest source of uncertainty” (in early 2007, when the report was published, based on data from 2006 and earlier). I then see two later independent reports on clouds with direct physical observations that directly refute the admittedly “uncertain” IPCC assumptions. So I use these data for my information, rather than the admittedly “uncertain” assumptions by IPCC.
So you see, Peter, I do not accept everything that IPCC publishes as “absolute truth”.
As a matter of fact, I have found many exaggerations, misrepresentations, omissions and outright lies in the IPCC reports, which I, of course, also do not accept “unconditionally”.
As a rational skeptic, I will question statements made by lobby groups, such as IPCC, the WWF and other environmental activist organizations as well as any openly anti-AGW lobby group until these can be proven to my satisfaction to be correct. Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.
To summarize: the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C is a myth, as I have pointed out to you in great detail, regardless of any unsubstantiated claim you may make that this is the “mainstream consensus of 2,500 climate scientists” (or any other equally silly and meaningless statement). The actual number is closer to 0.6 to 0.7C as the physical evidence (and “unadulterated” greenhouse theory) have shown and several climate experts have stated.
Regards,
Max